What are you giving up for lent?

rick_chasey

Religion is just the pretext used - like nationalism or any other ideology. It behaves in the same way (in this context)

It doesn't cause anything.

People do bad things because people do bad things. Just because they say it's in the name of x, doesn't mean x is at fault.

For all you know I could go on some rampage in the name of cyclists who write on bikeradar, but that wouldn't mean bikeradar is at fault. It's the nutter doing the rampage.

clarkey cat

take the conflict between cyclists and car drivers... we KNOW we are in the right because we are virtuous and fit and dont use petrol, but they KNOW they are in the right too for all their own reasons. We are all justifying our own actions with reference to the social mores we believe are right and they are theirs (we don't agree obviously) - less people use the words of a man with a beard sat in the sky as the basis of their moral compass anymore but we are all driven by our own BELIEF, whatever that may be. The problems of the world will disappear when no-one has any belief in anything any more - and that isn't going to happen for ages - especially as loads of nutters still think there's a man in the sky with a beard.

rjsterry

Oh blimey, I seemed to have steered this towards a debate on the nature of evil. Sorry everyone. Let's get back to discussing the right way to make pancakes.

clarkey cat

nutter = great word.

clarkey cat

RLJing = evil?

notsoblue

This may be apropos:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuck ... 30237.html

bikejon

Will Snow wrote:

daviesee wrote:

A good man who doesn't believe and an evil man who does. Which one gets into Heaven/Jannah etc?

I believe neither. But I see your point

I do too but neither will get to heaven on their own merits. It's faith in and obedience to Jesus that gets you there, not mans own works

I often think organised religion loses this message, rather than conveys it - no wonder people are turned off. Better to read the words of the man Himself.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Nothing as I gave up religion some time ago, about the same time I stopped beliving in santa.

I've posted this before but this sums up my current feelings on the subject much better than I ever could.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

What a wonderfully simplistic view of mankind. 20th century history has some fairly obvious examples that disprove that statement. He should have stuck with the physics.

Sorry to get all serious, but the 'religion causes all the world's problems' argument really gets my back up.

To be fair to Mr Weinberg that was not his point. The quote states quite clearly that an evil person will do bad things regardless of religion. His point being that through religion an otherwise "good" person can justify, at least to themselves, an evil act. Can you give me a 20th century history example of a "good" person performing an evil act that was not justified by religion?

daviesee

bikejon wrote:

Will Snow wrote:

daviesee wrote:

A good man who doesn't believe and an evil man who does. Which one gets into Heaven/Jannah etc?

I believe neither. But I see your point

I do too but neither will get to heaven on their own merits. It's faith in and obedience to Jesus that gets you there, not mans own works

I often think organised religion loses this message, rather than conveys it - no wonder people are turned off. Better to read the words of the man Himself.

And there is the rub. Neither God nor Jesus wrote the Bible. How valid is it? Sources?
Plus, I thought you weren't to pray to false Gods. Obedience in Jesus? Obedience instead of merit? Too many holes for me.

Pancakes though, Mmmmm

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

To be fair to Mr Weinberg that was not his point. The quote states quite clearly that an evil person will do bad things regardless of religion. His point being that through religion an otherwise "good" person can justify, at least to themselves, an evil act. Can you give me a 20th century history example of a "good" person performing an evil act that was not justified by religion?

Good is a relative term that changes over time, and you're using it in an absolute context so it's not a fair question.

And by saying "justfied by religion", you're loading the question. Surely it should be justified in light of religion, or something like that? By using 'by' you sugest religion is being active in the justification, whearas I think, in practice, it is often a passive role, since religion in the context you use is in the form of ideas and ideals.

Mr Dog

... all hope of a life without pain. :shock:

dhope

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Nothing as I gave up religion some time ago, about the same time I stopped beliving in santa.

I've posted this before but this sums up my current feelings on the subject much better than I ever could.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

What a wonderfully simplistic view of mankind. 20th century history has some fairly obvious examples that disprove that statement. He should have stuck with the physics.

Sorry to get all serious, but the 'religion causes all the world's problems' argument really gets my back up.

To be fair to Mr Weinberg that was not his point. The quote states quite clearly that an evil person will do bad things regardless of religion. His point being that through religion an otherwise "good" person can justify, at least to themselves, an evil act. Can you give me a 20th century history example of a "good" person performing an evil act that was not justified by religion?

Nelson Mandela?

Kieran_Burns

Mr Dog wrote:

... all hope of a life without pain. :shock:

How very dare you go back to the original question!

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Nothing as I gave up religion some time ago, about the same time I stopped beliving in santa.

I've posted this before but this sums up my current feelings on the subject much better than I ever could.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

What a wonderfully simplistic view of mankind. 20th century history has some fairly obvious examples that disprove that statement. He should have stuck with the physics.

Sorry to get all serious, but the 'religion causes all the world's problems' argument really gets my back up.

To be fair to Mr Weinberg that was not his point. The quote states quite clearly that an evil person will do bad things regardless of religion. His point being that through religion an otherwise "good" person can justify, at least to themselves, an evil act. Can you give me a 20th century history example of a "good" person performing an evil act that was not justified by religion?

Germany under the Third Reich would be one example. The Milgram experiments into our tendency to unquestioningly obey authority figures were partly prompted by an effort to explain how something like the Holocaust can occur. Clearly the vast majority of the German population weren't inherently evil, yet it still occurred with majority acceptance. As far as I'm aware there isn't really a religious element to National Socialism.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Nothing as I gave up religion some time ago, about the same time I stopped beliving in santa.

I've posted this before but this sums up my current feelings on the subject much better than I ever could.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

What a wonderfully simplistic view of mankind. 20th century history has some fairly obvious examples that disprove that statement. He should have stuck with the physics.

Sorry to get all serious, but the 'religion causes all the world's problems' argument really gets my back up.

To be fair to Mr Weinberg that was not his point. The quote states quite clearly that an evil person will do bad things regardless of religion. His point being that through religion an otherwise "good" person can justify, at least to themselves, an evil act. Can you give me a 20th century history example of a "good" person performing an evil act that was not justified by religion?

Germany under the Third Reich would be one example. The Milgram experiments into our tendency to unquestioningly obey authority figures were partly prompted by an effort to explain how something like the Holocaust can occur. Clearly the vast majority of the German population weren't inherently evil, yet it still occurred with majority acceptance. As far as I'm aware there isn't really a religious element to National Socialism.

Goodwin's law. End of thread.

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

Goodwin's law. End of thread.

Godwin. And dammit, I came up with the Third Reich at first and avoided it for exactly that reason, coming up with Mandela instead.

rhext

I think there's an unfortunate human tendency to form tribes, which subsequently treat other tribes as subhuman....justifying the most appalling acts of cruelty towards the 'other'. The tribes have to have a label/identifier otherwise (ironically perhaps) there's no way of telling who's in and who's out. Historically, nationalism has been one such label, but religious tribes are way up there with the most vicious and bloody in human history. To contend that religion is often found in a passive role seems to me to be complete nonsense: the Crusades?, the Inquisition?, the Taleban?

clarkey cat

I'm giving up chocolate and cigars.

rick_chasey

rhext wrote:

To contend that religion is often found in a passive role seems to me to be complete nonsense: the Crusades?, the Inquisition?, the Taleban?

Disagree massively.

You can't take the Crusades and the Inquisition out of context. Without boring everyone they're cultural and social.

The taleban is a better illustration - they have the same religious 'information' as other Muslims, such as those in Iran, Libya, Indonesia, etc, yet they take a more draconion view, and make it their political policy to enforce that view (i.e. through governance).

The religious bit, though certainly informing their views, is not the cause, It's ultimately down to how the taleban, and indeed anyone, treats the religious bit. So, again, the religion is the passive bit, and the taleban, with their political hegemony, the active bit.

There's a blurred line between religion and politics, but they shouldn't be confused. Religion is ultimately belief, not action - and in my own opinion, 'evil' is only 'evil' when it is an action, rather than a thought or belief. Though, I don't think i've ever described anything as 'evil' unless it was in a arts context.

rjsterry

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Goodwin's law. End of thread.

Godwin. And dammit, I came up with the Third Reich at first and avoided it for exactly that reason, coming up with Mandela instead.

Godwin's Law is more specific than that. It's the (spurious) comparison of someone or something with Nazis, whereas I was using it as an example - one that was the spur for the Milgram experiment - which btw, rather depressingly suggest that we are all capable of such things in the right circumstances.

That said, I was slightly uneasy about using such a loaded example. Pretty much any authoritarian regime is going to rely on a number of 'good' people doing bad things (as if we neatly fit into one category or the other).

EDIT: I checked and Godwin's Law (of Nazi Analogies) is only for the specific comparative use.

bearfraser

"Lent"







Entrophy rocks !!!!!

rick_chasey

To come up with a better analogy, though massively simplified: to blame religion on bad stuff (i'm loathe to use the word evil, given it's inception within the religious discourse) is like blaming physics and engineering globally for the deaths caused by dropping atom bombs in Japan, or anyone that's ever been shot by a firearm.

rhext

Rick Chasey wrote:

To come up with a better analogy, though massively simplified: to blame religion on bad stuff (i'm loathe to use the word evil, given it's inception within the religious discourse) is like blaming physics and engineering globally for the deaths caused by dropping atom bombs in Japan, or anyone that's ever been shot by a firearm.

Nah, that's rubbish. Religion informs action: people act because of their beliefs. No-one trys to use physics as a justification for pulling a trigger.

The way you present it, religion has no influence in human affairs: peoples beliefs do not inform their actions. You're asking us to believe that atrocities committed by a religious state are a side-effect of the state and the 'religious' aspect of that state is unimportant. I simply don't buy that. I don't argue that humans would not commit atrocities if there were no religion, but I have no doubt that religion is one of the banners used as a rallying cry.

It's possible that something similar to the crusades would have happened in the absence of religion...but the fact is they didn't!

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

To come up with a better analogy, though massively simplified: to blame religion on bad stuff (i'm loathe to use the word evil, given it's inception within the religious discourse) is like blaming physics and engineering globally for the deaths caused by dropping atom bombs in Japan, or anyone that's ever been shot by a firearm.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that analogy. Physics is dispassionate. We didn't create physics, we merely used it as a tool. Religion however is an emergent property of human societies and the relationship between religion and the culture it emerged from is reciprocal.

dhope

notsoblue wrote:

We didn't create physics
-snip-
Religion however...

Agreed :twisted:

cycladianpirate

rhext wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To come up with a better analogy, though massively simplified: to blame religion on bad stuff (i'm loathe to use the word evil, given it's inception within the religious discourse) is like blaming physics and engineering globally for the deaths caused by dropping atom bombs in Japan, or anyone that's ever been shot by a firearm.

Nah, that's rubbish. Religion informs action: people act because of their beliefs. No-one trys to use physics as a justification for pulling a trigger.

The way you present it, religion has no influence in human affairs: peoples beliefs do not inform their actions. You're asking us to believe that atrocities committed by a religious state are a side-effect of the state and the 'religious' aspect of that state is unimportant. I simply don't buy that. I don't argue that humans would not commit atrocities if there were no religion, but I have no doubt that religion is one of the banners used as a rallying cry.

It's possible that something similar to the crusades would have happened in the absence of religion...but the fact is they didn't!

You make a good point but seem to miss the corollary of your argument. Whether the 'banner cry' is religion, philosophy, tribal dissimilitude or some political conceit the result is much the same - one group attacking another. To that extent, religion is, frankly, irrelevant. It doesn't "cause" problems any more than other factors do - the underlying cause is the way we are...

I'm thoroughly with Spinoza on this one (to paraphrase grossly) - it's a load of rubbish, but if it makes even one person happy - what's the harm?

cycladianpirate

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To come up with a better analogy, though massively simplified: to blame religion on bad stuff (i'm loathe to use the word evil, given it's inception within the religious discourse) is like blaming physics and engineering globally for the deaths caused by dropping atom bombs in Japan, or anyone that's ever been shot by a firearm.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that analogy. Physics is dispassionate. We didn't create physics, we merely used it as a tool. Religion however is an emergent property of human societies and the relationship between religion and the culture it emerged from is reciprocal.

Mmmm,

I'm afraid we did create physics. It's a set of principles that attempt to describe the universe. What passes for physics at any particularly time in human history has been discounted by future generations and the current set of principles will undoubtedly suffer a similar fate.

rick_chasey

rhext wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To come up with a better analogy, though massively simplified: to blame religion on bad stuff (i'm loathe to use the word evil, given it's inception within the religious discourse) is like blaming physics and engineering globally for the deaths caused by dropping atom bombs in Japan, or anyone that's ever been shot by a firearm.

Nah, that's rubbish. Religion informs action: people act because of their beliefs. No-one trys to use physics as a justification for pulling a trigger.

The way you present it, religion has no influence in human affairs: peoples beliefs do not inform their actions. You're asking us to believe that atrocities committed by a religious state are a side-effect of the state and the 'religious' aspect of that state is unimportant. I simply don't buy that. I don't argue that humans would not commit atrocities if there were no religion, but I have no doubt that religion is one of the banners used as a rallying cry.

It's possible that something similar to the crusades would have happened in the absence of religion...but the fact is they didn't!

You present religion as something that is seperate from humans. Remember, humans create, interpret, and use religion. It's just an idea, like any other idea, and it only exists within the minds of humans. It's not some outside force that affects people.
You talk of things in absolute terms but they are relative. My point about the taleban is that it there is a process of appropriaton, and inportantly, interpretation. That interpretation and appropriation is influenced by so so many things, that the actual role of religion becomes impossible to work out.

You're right that it 'informs' people, but alongside what I say there, it informs people about their moral behaviour in the same way other knowledge ( which doesn't have to be limited to 'facts') and informs people's behaviour.


If you say that you don't think religion is a force for people to commit attrocities, but it's used as a banner, then why the hate directed towards the religion? The issue there is the innate humaness that allows said attrocities to occur. I'm defending religion in this context from the argument that religion causes and without it, there would be less harm in the world.

People study how ideas such as racism, sexism, etc, actually come into being, and it ultimately boils down to much more fundamental issues such as identity and other psychological and poltical issues, rather than religion.

rhext

OK, I give in. The only cause of human evil is humans....not religion. But I still contend that religion is one of the most powerful tools ever created to propagate that evil and get large populations to participate.

Does it really make people happy though? People with an AIDS infection which could easily have been avoided by a condom, for example? Women subjected to genital mutilation because some thousand year old compliation of campfire stories has been interpreted to conclude that's a good thing? I could go on almost for ever.....

bikejon

daviesee wrote:

bikejon wrote:

Will Snow wrote:

daviesee wrote:

A good man who doesn't believe and an evil man who does. Which one gets into Heaven/Jannah etc?

I believe neither. But I see your point

I do too but neither will get to heaven on their own merits. It's faith in and obedience to Jesus that gets you there, not mans own works

I often think organised religion loses this message, rather than conveys it - no wonder people are turned off. Better to read the words of the man Himself.

And there is the rub. Neither God nor Jesus wrote the Bible. How valid is it? Sources?
Plus, I thought you weren't to pray to false Gods. Obedience in Jesus? Obedience instead of merit? Too many holes for me.

Pancakes though, Mmmmm

None can hope to reach the glory of God by their own works. The way to 'salvation' (from 'salve' so to be healed) is to recognise your failures and bring them 'to Light' (into consciousness) so they can no longer have the same power over you. It's about becoming more aware and becoming free from your trappings that lead to selfishness, destructive behaviour (sin).
Obedience to me requires self-honesty and to admit when your heart isn't in it. God wants your heart involved in the process and not mere adherence to Laws, as this just creates self-rightousness... which is a trapping of those that try to obey the Law by their own merit.
Evil people who strike out in the name of religion are entirely blind to their own failings and have totally ignored the need to repent (changing their thinking and direction) so are the worst example of The Message!
The Bible shows this message over and over again, as well as what happens to people who don't get it as well as those that do. I don't see the holes in this point personally. Jesus didn't come to write a book, he came to fulfill scripture. Mankind has shown itself competent at writing. People look for proof in facts but the truth is found in the message and living it out.
I'm definitely with you on the pancakes, by the way :-)